The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in its entirety:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear an important case regarding the second amendment. Interestingly, this case is brought by a citizen from the District of Columbia, which is not a State.
Especially during the last 50 years, we have seen a steady erosion of the constitutionally guaranteed right. And this is certainly an individuals right. The historical minuteman was the citizen-soldier always ready to grab his rifle at a moments notice to protect himself, his family, and his community.
Notice that it says the right is to keep (own, have possession of), and bear (carry on your person), arms (plural, multiple). And that right shall not be infringed (impeded, encroached, invalidate, violate).
This right has been attacked and infringed on every level. Right now the main discussion is the right of an individual to just have a firearm. The right to bear it is already severely restricted. Waiting periods, conceal-and-carry permits, etc. all certainly infringe this right.
We are like the frog in a pot of water that is beginning to boil. If the Court determines the second amendment applies to the States instead of the individual, this right will have been removed from individuals. Combined with the Federal Governments refusal to protect the States from invasion, we are between a rock and a hard place.
3 comments:
regulatory laws do not control people who are of a malicious criminal nature. So these laws are,in my opinion, a direct attack on the law abiding citizens,who, to protect thier families and community from these criminal elements who can purchase any kind of firearm for pennies on the dollar.The true effect of gun laws is disarming a societies ability to protect itself from an invasion or as the 2nd ammendment states "an oppressive Government" America, Bless God!
for he has truly blessed us.
R. Clark Tulsa
regulatory laws do not control people who are of a malicious criminal nature. So these laws are,in my opinion, a direct attack on the law abiding citizens,who, to protect thier families and community from these criminal elements who can purchase any kind of firearm for pennies on the dollar.The true effect of gun laws is disarming a societies ability to protect itself from an invasion or as the 2nd ammendment states "an oppressive Government" America, Bless God!
for he has truly blessed us.
R. Clark Tulsa
Not only that, but it's not a "shotgun" or a "deer rifle". Yes, the minutemen carried a rifle that could be used to hunt, and was quite capable of taking a deer, but it was also very similar to the "modern military musket" of that day's infantryman, complete with bayonet.
In other words, they carried "assault rifles".
By today's standards, instead of handgun and assault rifle bans, we should be allowed to have M14's. I'd say M16's but the .223 is pretty puny for taking a deer.
Post a Comment